TB8-14614

TB8-14614

The appellants' testimony contained material inconsistencies and evolutions (assault details, daughter's hospitalization, residence/hiding), they submitted at least one document found to be fabricated or of dubious provenance (handwritten kindergarten enrollment), they failed to provide or allow verification of key medical evidence without reasonable justification, the new evidence proffered on appeal largely failed subsection 110(4)/Singh tests (letters inadmissible for credibility/timing; only a July 20, 2018 article admitted but not dispositive), and there is no evidence the Azerbaijani authorities know of their Canadian claim; consequently the RPD's credibility finding was correct and...

Citation
TB8-14614
Parties
Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Daughter): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor Son): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Following RPD Rejection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Rule 29 (rad), Standard of Review, Sur Place Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Documentary Evidence Rule 29 (rad) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Daughter)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor Son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Following RPD Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing and weighing documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether documents proffered on appeal meet subsection 110(4) IRPA and Singh criteria

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' testimony contained material inconsistencies and evolutions (assault details, daughter's hospitalization, residence/hiding), they submitted at least one document found to be fabricated or of dubious provenance (handwritten kindergarten enrollment), they failed to provide or allow verification of key medical evidence without reasonable justification, the new evidence proffered on appeal largely failed subsection 110(4)/Singh tests (letters inadmissible for credibility/timing; only a July 20, 2018 article admitted but not dispositive), and there is no evidence the Azerbaijani authorities know of their Canadian claim; consequently the RPD's credibility finding was correct and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act